Anyone surprised by this? I am not. Oh wait, I am surprised that Human Rights Watch can see civilians being used as human shields in Syria but some how is blind to the practice in Gaza. I wonder why that is? I am sure someone will explain it to me.

Syria: Local Residents Used as Human ShieldsReports of Residents Forced to March in Front of Soldiers in Idlib

(Antakya, Turkey) – Syrian government forces have endangered local residents by forcing them to march in front of the army during recent arrest operations, troop movements, and attacks on towns and villages in northern Syria, Human Rights Watch said today.

Witnesses from the towns of al-Janoudyah, Kafr Nabl, Kafr Rouma, and Ayn Larouz in the Idlib governorate in northern Syria told Human Rights Watch that they saw the army and pro-government armed men, referred to locally as shabeeha, force people to march in front of the advancing army during the March 2012 offensive to retake control of areas that had fallen into the hands of the opposition.. . .

There is no merit in a stance that is critical of the UN when it does not do the right thing, but equally critical of the UN when it does do the right thing.

Your two messages here display the same double-standard you allegedly complain about.

Worth posting twice.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.

It seems to me that there are certain elements of the UN which have proven to be failures and others which have not. Part of this is a consequence of mislabeling the UN. It is a political organization, first and foremost. However, some parts of the organization were originally designed to be non-political and to a certain extent have been successful in conducting humanitarian activities to the benefit of everyone. Sometimes these humanitarian parts of the organization have become politicized and as a consequence increasingly fail to provide humanitarian services.

As for the political part of the organization, this has been mislabeled on occasion, as a world government, or more often has been criticized for not behaving like a world government. At best the UNO acts as a non-violent arena for disputants to come together and perhaps work out a solution to their conflict. At worst UNO is seen as a peace making (as opposed to peace keeping) body and always fails in this capacity.

There have been attepts by UNO to advance human rights. To do so would require some sort of world government. Thus nothing much happens as UNO is not such a government. In addition, the UNO bodies charged with advancing human rights have become heavily politicized, which, while not being such a surprise, also greatly limits their role in the advancement of HR. In fact, they mostly spend their time ignoring HR violations of favored states and highlighting or inventing HR violations of un-favored states. I wouldn't expect anything else but I am often surprised that people who are genuine in their desire for expanded human rights, ignore this politicization and its consequences.